The Saturn Theory Overview III
by David Talbott
In the course of these submissions, I'll attempt to respond to various
comments by others, while trying to keep a sense of direction.
In response to my previous notes, noted author Vine Deloria wrote:
"OK - then all we need is to establish the various sequences of
interaction with earth and try to get some dates down - even approximations -
and some idea of the disruption of our strata here plus whatever was
"dumped" from the other planets and we have something to work with.
"We can now ...ask the question - how did human society
and/or civilizations get off the ground..., etc."
Chronology. Physical Evidence. Dynamics. All of these issues
intertwine. Moreover, various individuals exploring catastrophist ideas
will work from different perspectives, and will hold different ideas as
to what constitutes the most solid ground for a starting point.
The solid ground, in my own thinking, is the substratum of human memory.
It is this substratum that raises the deepest historical questions and
sends us scurrying about to find answers, even if the answers upset
various specialists, asking them to reconsider the most fundamental
assumptions of their discipline. My own conclusion came as a great
surprise: the substratum of human memory is incredibly dependable. But
others would consider that to be a losing proposition out of the gate.
So there's an immediate problem of communication here.
[A definition just to avoid misunderstanding: By the "substratum of
human memory" I don't mean Jungian collective memory, though Jungian
psychology may indeed come into the equation in the bigger picture.
For now, I mean the common mythical, symbolic and ritual themes of
widely separate cultures. Another way of putting it might be, "Points
of agreement concerning remembered events."]
In this inquiry, I think there are certain things we can all agree on.
Truth is unifying, because it eliminates contradictions. When you are
looking for the truth of a matter, any significant and incontrovertible
fact is good news, because it can save you from heading in the wrong
direction. It's particularly good news if it compels you to change
your mind, because in doing so it has liberated you from a burden that
could only grow. When it comes to the more fundamental errors, a whole
life time could be spent on a dead-end course.
Physical data and physical theory will be involved–and implicated–at
every step. Whatever happened is not impossible. What is impossible
didn't happen. There will be no unified theory in the sense we are all
looking for, until what was remembered can be comprehended. Not just
comprehended as a set of anciently-supported images, but comprehended in
terms of what is possible, and in terms of the physical signature of the
But before I wander off, let's return to THE ONE STORY TOLD AROUND THE
WORLD. Since we are claiming this to be one memory reflected in the
myth-making adventure as a whole, I had better republish the story.
(Already my second printing. It's not long, you will recall):
Once the world was quite a different place. In the beginning, we were
ruled by the central luminary of the sky, the motionless sun, presiding
over an age of natural abundance and cosmic harmony. "Creator"-king,
father of kings, founder of the kingship rites. And this earliest
remembered time was the "exemplary" epoch, the Golden Age, the standard
for all later generations.
But the ancient order was disrupted and the entire cosmos fell into
confusion, when the Universal Monarch tumbled from his appointed
station. Then the hordes of chaos were set loose and all of creation
slipped into a cosmic night, the gods themselves battling furiously in
And yet, from this descent into chaos, a new world emerged, now
re-configured, but with the Universal Monarch himself, rejuvenated and
transformed, assuming his rightful place in the heavens.
What an outrageous claim to make–to suggest that there are no domains
of ancient myth that can be isolated from this singular story! But I am
not just arguing by proclamation here. I am contending that the truth
can be demonstrated by following certain rules. Call these the RULES
FOR RE-ENVISIONING HUMAN HISTORY. Our first rule is: we will always
work from the general motif to the specific. A second is: only broadly
recurring themes count as evidence, particularly in the early stages of
the reconstruction. And there is a third rule: Earlier-recorded
versions of the recurring themes must be permitted to explain later
Okay, just one more rule: we must allow ancient drawings to illuminate
the myths and rites, while permitting the myths and rites to illuminate
the drawings. This last rule is crucial because, around the world,
ancient skygazers drew remarkably similar pictures of things that do not
exist in our sky. And the things depicted are the "subjects" of the
myths and rites, though this vital truth has not been generally
recognized, either by catastrophists or by mainstream scholars.
Now let's take the ONE STORY a step further, in response to Vine's
question: how many archetypal figures of myth are there? There are
SEVEN, I say with smug assurance.
Well there "are" just seven! But it all depends how you count these
For openers, we know there is at least one archetypal figure, because he
is the god whose ancient name was "ONE", the primeval, all-encompassing
"Unity". This figure is, of course, the Universal Monarch, the subject
of our ONE STORY (So our ONE STORY might be subtitled the "The Story of
ONE'"). Examples would include: Egyptian Atum and Ra, Sumerian An and
Utu, Akkadian Anu and Shamash, Hindu Varuna and Brahma, Greek Ouranos
and Kronos, Aztec Ometeotl and Quetzalcoatl, to name a few.
Our claim is that all others stories, all other archetypal figures, when
investigated at the core, lead back to the ONE STORY, intersecting with
this story in the most remarkable and explicit ways.
Here are the other figures:
Queen of Heaven
Wherever you find the Universal Monarch you will find close at hand the
ancient mother goddess–the goddess whom the Sumerians called Inanna,
the Queen of Heaven, and the Babylonians Ishtar, and the Egyptians Isis,
Hathor, and Sekhmet, each with numerous counterparts in their own and in
other lands, and virtually all of them viewed symbolically as daughter
or spouse of the creator-king, and the mother of another, equally
This is the great national hero, originally the Demiurge, the servant of
the creator-king, but passing into later myth as the laboring warrior,
messenger or servant of a great chief or regional ruler. He is the
Hercules archetype, a figure combining knowledge and brutish strength,
quick wit and episodic foolishness. He defeats the chaos monsters in
primordial times, and he re-configures the world. With a personality
clearly dominating the later mythical chronicles, the warrior-hero is
the prototype of the famous tricksters and buffoons of later myth and
folklore, flowering into thousands of tribal variations. Egyptian Shu,
Horus and Sept, Akkadian Nergal, Hindu Indra, Norse Thor, Greek Ares and
Hercules, Aztec Huitzilopochtli. Also, in North America: Coyote and
Raven. But countless others as well, because the warrior-hero is far
and away the most active figure in the myths.
These satellite figures are presented in a variety of contexts, as wise
men, patriarchs, seers, children, dwarves, stones of fate, stars, orbs,
heads of the chaos monster. They are the first reason for the sanctity
of the number seven in ancient symbolism.
Here we meet the darker, more menacing powers, possessing an
often-hidden link to aspects of the mother goddess or warrior-hero type.
Of these darker creatures none is more prominent than the cosmic serpent
or dragon, a monster that descends on the world to preside over the
twilight of the gods, and whose ultimate defeat signals the birth of a
new age or, symbolically, a new year. Babylonian Tiamat. Egyptian
dragon of Apep. Greek Typhon. But within every culture, endless
variations will be found: hundreds of monsters repeating the primeval
catastrophe, each providing a different nuance, a different accent, a
different way of remembering the cosmic agent of Doomsday.
These are the companions of the monster figures. They are the swarming
powers of disorder and calamity, the fiends of darkness–flaming,
devouring demons which so many magical rites were contrived to ward off.
>From the Norse Valkyries to the Greek Erinyes, from the Babylonian
Pazuzu-demons to the Egyptian "Fiends of Set." Every culture remembered
the onslaught of these chaos demons, moving across the heavens as a
sky-darkening cloud and ushering in the cosmic night. In their earliest
expressions, they do not just announce the primeval catastrophe, they
"are" the catastrophe.
Rejuvenated Creator King
And lastly, there is the compelling personality of the dying god-king,
often a resurrected or transformed figure, whose springing back to life
is reflected in the dramas of the New Year, symbolically the passing
from one age to another. Though his identity is inseparably tied to the
Universal Monarch, he nevertheless emerges in distinction from that god
as his "son"–the younger version, or "rejuvenated" form of his own
father. Examples would include: Egyptian Osiris, Akkadian Marduk;
Persian Ahura Mazda; Norse Balder; Hebrew Yahweh; Phoenician Bel, Greek
So there are just seven archetypal personalities of myth, if you count
them in this way. We are not separating the chaos monster into it's
male and female aspects, so we count only one monster. We "are"
separating the Universal Monarch into his elder and younger versions,
We arrive, therefore, at our first critical juncture. An acid test.
Can a mere seven categories actually encompass all of world
mythology? While there are numerous complexities and ambiguities to
slow us down periodically, the vast majority of well-documented
regional figures of myth can be readily identified in terms of these
archetypes. And the implications are quite astounding if you set this
principle beside the different theories offered to explain myth in the
NOT A SINGLE THEORY PROPOSED BEFORE VELIKOVSKY
OPENED THE DOOR WILL ACCOUNT FOR THE ARCHETYPES,
THE BEDROCK OF MYTH.
But the implications become all the more astounding when you begin to
see that each of the archetypal figures is linked in no uncertain terms
to the ONE STORY. (I'll give some key examples in the next few
submissions.) A "universal structure" to ancient memory is present.
The six additional biographies re-tell the "story of ONE", but each with
a slight turn of the prism, putting the focus on a particular aspect of
the story and providing more colorful action and detail. What an
amazing principle, if true.
Of all the skills that the independent researcher might bring to this
inquiry, none will prove more crucial than that of pattern recognition.
There is structure to myth. Structure that has never been sufficiently
acknowledged. Structure implies coherence, an integrity between the
parts. Clearly human imagination must have gone wild to have produced
the incredible vistas of the ancient mythscape. But structure is there
too, and structure means that human imagination was not operating in a
vacuum. What could have unleashed human imagination in this way, while
yet inspiring a universal myth? Nothing less than the most awesome and
traumatic experiences in human history, I would say.
The Saturn Theory Part IV